Talk show host also admits he recently took ad money from GM, despite criticism

Talk
show host Rush Limbaugh on his conservative talk show released a
barrage of harsh criticism towards General Motors and its electric
vehicle superstar, the 2011 Chevy Volt.

Wasting no time after
GM's press release of the completed
Volt, its price, and pre-order info, Limbaugh aired a Wednesday
broadcast saying the Volt was unviable and blamed President
Obama for what he sees as the sad state of General Motors.

Despite
recently turning
a profit, Limbaugh claims GM is doomed. He states, "Obama
and the government are admitting nobody wants this."

Limbaugh
says the price is too high and calls GM "Obama Motors", a
slightly less used slur than the popular "Government Motors"
line. He says its just an excuse for Obama to pour
$86B USD more into the auto industry.

While some may
agree with his assessment of price, his commentary on the vehicle's
operation indicated a lack of knowledge and/or confusion about its
gas generator. Limbaugh comments, "That 40-mile range has
to include you getting home, and staying home three to four hours to
charge the thing. It's (a) 20-mile range."

Limbaugh
said he didn't believe that the gas generator could really increase
the range to 300 miles, while failing to cite any concrete evidence
to back up his claims. GM has assured the public that the
gasoline range (300 miles on a tank) is a safe estimate under
virtually all conditions giving average driving habits (careful
drivers may get better mileage, heavy footed ones may get slightly
worse). The battery range admittedly is variable depending on
weather conditions and may be significantly better or worse under
hot or cold weather.

Despite his criticism of GM, Limbaugh
admits he was more than happy to take GM advertising money. He
admits that last year he accepted ad money to promote the company's
new car purchase incentives for workers who lost their jobs. GM
has been listed as a sponsor of his program in the past.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

It is pefectly possible, and in fact reasonable, to disagree with the majority of a President's policies while agreeing with some fo them. It is not hypocracy, it is merely supporting what you yourself want, even if someone you don't normally like is supporting ti as well.

I mean what, is he supposed to remove his support for something just because Obama supports it as well and he, in general, does not favor Obama? THAT would be hypocracy.

quote: I mean what, is he supposed to remove his support for something just because Obama supports it as well and he, in general, does not favor Obama? THAT would be hypocracy.

I didn't think you were being sarcastic, but if you were just ignore my comments:

That is pretty much the congressional Republicans' attitude right now. There are plenty of topics that they have supported in the past that they voted no on because they are Obama and the Democrat's policies.

Granted it is not that simple, and Republicans are frustrated with the way Democrats are doing/running/passing things, but just sayin...

As an aside, just to make a point Republicans passed Bush's tax cuts through the same way Democrats passed health care...I can't remember what it's called. But anyway I saw that if those cuts were to remain in place from now through 2018 (8 years) it would cost $2.6 trillion dollars. So figuring that they passed in 2001 and 2003, a similar cost was probably incurred through 2010. Compare that to the Obamacare cost of 1 trillion... But again to be fair, that whole 2.6 trillion wouldn't be absorbed into the deficit because some would be regained through tax revenue...emphasis on some. Just as with Obamacare where supposedly we would save 18 billion instead of lose 1 trillion due to estimated health care cost savings.

quote: There are plenty of topics that they have supported in the past that they voted no on because they are Obama and the Democrat's policies.

And that is hypocracy, but my original argument stands. The previous poster was claiming hypocrasy because Limbagh DIDN'T change his stace on something when Obama also aupported it. Unless I have reading fail.